Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8277 

1Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119 

Stat. 594 (2005). 

2Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company 

Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility 

Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667, 70 

FR 75592 (Dec. 20, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,197 (2005). 

3Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company 

Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility 

Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667–A, 

71 FR 28446 (May 16, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,213 (2006). 

4Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company 

Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility 

Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667–B, 71 

FR 42750 (July 28, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,224 (2006). 

5 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1). 

6Order No. 667–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,213 

at P 28. 7Order No. 667–B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,224 

at P 20. 8U.S.C. 79c(a); see 15 U.S.C. 79z–5a and 79z–5b. 

air carrier and presents himself or 

herself at the airport for the purpose of 

traveling on the flight for which the 

ticket has been purchased or obtained; 

and (2) Meets reasonable, 

nondiscriminatory contract of carriage 

requirements applicable to all 

passengers. 

Required Method of Operation 

(RMOP)—An agreement between a 

carrier and DEFRA concerning the 

procedures the carrier will use to ensure 

the proper transport of animals into the 

U.K. under PETS. This document must 

be approved by DEFRA before the 

carrier can begin PETS participation. 

SLA (Service Level Agreement)—An 

agreement between an ARC and a carrier 

that the ARC will verify the PETS 

compliance status of any animal 

arriving at the local airport over one of 

the carrier’s approved routes. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 20, 

2007. 

Samuel Podberesky, 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation, 

Enforcement and Proceedings. 

[FR Doc. E7–3195 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 365 and 366 

[Docket No. RM05–32–003, Order No. 667–

C] 

Repeal of the Public Utility Holding 

Company Act of 1935 and Enactment 

of the Public Utility Holding Company 

Act of 2005 

Issued February 20, 2007. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final order; order denying 

rehearing. 

SUMMARY: By this order, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission denies 

rehearing of Order No. 667–B. Order No. 

667–B addressed requests for 

clarification and rehearing of prior 

orders that implemented repeal of the 

Public Utility Holding Company Act of 

1935 and enactment of the Public Utility 

Holding Company Act of 2005. 

DATES: Effective Date: This order is 

effective on March 28, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lawrence Greenfield (Legal 

Information), Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–6415. 

Laura Wilson (Legal Information), 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6128. 

James Guest (Technical Information), 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6614. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. 

Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, 

Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon 

Wellinghoff. 

Subtitle F of Title XII of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) 

repealed the Public Utility Holding 

Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA 1935) 

and enacted the Public Utility Holding 

Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA 2005).1

In Order No. 667, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

issued regulations to implement Subtitle 

F.2 In Order No. 667–A, the Commission 

denied rehearing in part and granted 

rehearing in part of Order No. 667.3 In 

Order No. 667–B, the Commission 

granted clarification in part, denied 

rehearing in part and granted rehearing 

in part of Order No. 667–A.4 In the 

present order, we deny rehearing of 

Order No. 667–B. 

1. American Public Power Association 

together with National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association (APPA/ 

NRECA) and Florida Municipal Power 

Agency together with Seminole Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. (FMPA/Seminole) 

raise one issue on rehearing of Order 

No. 667–B: whether PUHCA 2005’s 

accounting, record retention and 

reporting requirements should apply to 

a holding company system whose 

traditional utility operations are 

confined substantially to one state but 

that holds significant interests in out-ofstate exempt wholesale generators 

(EWGs), foreign utility companies 

(FUCOs), and qualifying facilities (QFs). 

They assert that these requirements 

should apply because, they claim, 

regulators would not otherwise have 

access to relevant accounts and records 

and therefore would be unable to 

prevent inappropriate crosssubsidization or other misallocations of 

costs within the holding company 

system. We deny rehearing as discussed 

below. 

Background 

2. Under the Commission’s 

regulations under PUHCA 2005, a 

‘‘single-state holding company system’’

is eligible for waiver of the 

Commission’s PUHCA 2005 accounting, 

record retention and reporting 

requirements.5 In Order No. 667–A, the 

Commission defined ‘‘single-state 

holding company system’’ as a system 

that derives no more than 13 percent of 

its ‘‘public-utility company’’ revenues 

from outside a single state.6 In Order 

No. 667–B, the Commission clarified 

that revenues from EWGs, FUCOs or 

QFs do not constitute public-utility 

company revenues for purposes of 

determining status as a single-state 

holding company system.7 As a result, 

a single-state holding company system 

as defined in Order Nos. 667–A and 

667–B may hold interests in EWGs, 

FUCOs and QFs without, by virtue of 

those interests, being subject to the 

Commission’s PUHCA 2005 accounting, 

record retention and reporting 

requirements. 

3. The Commission reasoned that this 

approach follows the approach taken 

under section 3(a) of PUHCA 1935, 

which exempted a holding company 

from plenary oversight under PUHCA 

1935 if the holding company’s 

traditional utility operations were 

largely confined to one state.8 The 

exemption in section 3(a) reflected 

Congress’ assessment that other state 

and federal corporate and rate 

regulation was sufficient to protect 

against abuse in those circumstances. 

Further, the 13 percent standard 

adopted by the Commission in Order 

Nos. 667–A and B to determine who 

qualifies for the single state holding 

company waiver was the same standard 

applied by the SEC under PUHCA 1935, 

thus resulting in no more onerous 

regulatory requirements than those in 

place under PUHCA 1935. In Order No. 

667–B, the Commission found that other 

state and federal regulation continues to 

be sufficient to protect against abuse, 

without subjecting a holding company 

system to the Commission’s PUHCA 

2005 accounting, record retention and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
8278 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

9Order No. 667–B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,224 

at P 20–22. 

10 16 U.S.C. 824d–e, 825; Order No. 667, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,197 at P 3–6; accord 15 U.S.C. 

717c–d, 717g (identifying Commission authority 

with respect to natural gas companies). 

11 42 U.S.C. 16453. The Federal Power Act, in 

particular section 201(g), 16 U.S.C. 824(g), also 

grants state regulatory authorities certain access to 

books and records. 

reporting requirements due to the 

holding company system’s ownership of 

out-of-state EWGs, FUCOs and QFs.9

Requests for Rehearing 

4. APPA/NRECA and FMPA/ 

Seminole envision a holding company 

system whose traditional utility 

operations are confined to one state but 

that has EWGs, FUCOs and QFs in 

multiple jurisdictions. They assert that, 

if such a holding company system is not 

subject to the Commission’s PUHCA 

2005 accounting, record retention and 

reporting requirements, regulators will 

have insufficient access to the holding 

company system’s accounts and records 

and therefore will be unable to protect 

against misallocations of costs and other 

potential abuses within the holding 

company system. 

Decision 

5. In adopting the SEC’s 13 percent of 

revenue standard (and exclusion of 

EWGs, FUCOs and QFs from 

consideration in the 13 percent of 

revenue calculation) for purposes of 

determining who qualifies for the single 

state holding company waiver of the 

Commission’s PUHCA 2005 accounting, 

record retention and reporting 

requirements, the Commission sought to 

be consistent with the general intent of 

Congress, in repealing PUHCA 1935, to 

remove unnecessary regulatory burdens 

and not to create new ones in PUHCA 

2005. Furthermore, APPA/NRECA and 

FMPA/Seminole have presented no 

convincing argument that other state 

and federal regulation will be 

insufficient to protect against abuse in 

the circumstances envisioned by APPA/ 

NRECA and FMPA/Seminole, without 

imposition of the Commission’s PUHCA 

2005 accounting, record retention and 

reporting requirements. The 

Commission will still have full access 

under the FPA to the accounts and 

records of the traditional public utility 

within the holding company system 

(i.e., the utility with captive customers 

and traditional regulated rates) and of 

the holding company and any other 

company controlled by the holding 

company, insofar as they relate to 

transactions with or the business of the 

public utility.10 From those accounts 

and records, the Commission will be 

able to discern whether the public 

utility is attempting to recover, from its 

captive customers, costs that are 

properly attributable to other businesses 

within the holding company system. 

6. Moreover, with respect to state 

regulatory authority access to books and 

records of holding companies and their 

associate and affiliate companies, 

nothing in our waivers affects section 

1265 of PUHCA 2005, which expressly 

provides for such access.11 We add that 

no state regulatory authority has 

suggested that it has insufficient 

authority in the circumstances 

envisioned. 

7. For these reasons, we deny 

rehearing. 

The Commission Orders 

APPA/NRECA’s and FMPA/ 

Seminole’s requests for rehearing are 

hereby denied. 

By the Commission. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–3234 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–07–016] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Housatonic River, Stratford, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the Metro North Devon 

Bridge, across the Housatonic River, 

mile 3.9, at Stratford, Connecticut. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

draw may remain in the closed position 

from 8 a.m. through 11 p.m. on March 

3, 2007. This deviation is necessary to 

facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

8 a.m. through 11 p.m. on March 3, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 

document are available for inspection or 

copying at the First Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch Office, One 

South Street, New York, New York, 

10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The telephone number is (212) 

668–7165. The First Coast Guard 

District Bridge Branch Office maintains 

the public docket for this temporary 

deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast 

Guard District, at (212) 668–7165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metro 

North Devon Bridge across the 

Housatonic River, mile 3.9, at Stratford, 

Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in 

the closed position of 19 feet at mean 

high water and 25 feet at mean low 

water. The existing operating 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 

117.207(b). 

The bridge owner, Metro North, 

requested a temporary deviation to 

allow the bridge to remain in the closed 

position to facilitate scheduled bridge 

maintenance. Under this temporary 

deviation the Metro North Devon Bridge 

may remain in the closed position from 

8 a.m. through 11 p.m. on March 3, 

2007. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), 

this work will be performed with all due 

speed in order to return the bridge to 

normal operation as soon as possible. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

Dated: February 15, 2007. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. E7–3206 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–07–015] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Reynolds Channel, New York, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the Long Island 

Railroad Bridge, across Reynolds 

Channel, mile 4.4, at New York City, 

New York. Under this temporary 

deviation the draw may remain in the 

closed position for 24-hours on both 

March 3, 2007 and March 10, 2007. This 

deviation is necessary to facilitate 

scheduled bridge maintenance. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES